| People v Croswell |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04439 [63 AD3d 754] |
| June 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JarelCroswell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Steven A. Hovani and GraziaDivincenzo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle,J.), rendered April 30, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting evidence of a prior unchargedcrime is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant made only general objections to thatline of questioning, or objected on grounds other than those raised on appeal (see People vGarcia, 294 AD2d 515 [2002]). The defendant did not request a limiting instruction or objectto the charge as given (see People vGiuca, 58 AD3d 750 [2009]).
In any event, this contention is without merit. The defendant opened the door to testimonyabout the prior incident during cross-examination of one of the People's witnesses. The court hadthe discretion to consider whether and to what extent the witness's testimony was incomplete andmisleading, and what, if any, otherwise inadmissible evidence was reasonably necessary tocorrect the misleading impression (see People v Massie, 2 NY3d 179, 184 [2004];People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982]; People v Morris, 34 AD3d 846 [2006]). The court allowed only somuch additional evidence as was necessary to meet [*2]what wasbrought out on cross-examination (see People v Massie, 2 NY3d 179, 183 [2004];People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 452 [1982]).
The defendant's contention that certain testimony by the lead detective on this caseconstituted improper bolstering is without merit. The detective's testimony regarding priorstatements made by two of the People's witnesses was not admitted for the truth of the matterasserted, but to show the detective's state of mind, demonstrate how the police investigationevolved, and explain the sequence of events leading to the defendant's apprehension (see People v Wright, 54 AD3d695 [2008]; People v Reyes, 49AD3d 565 [2008]). Furthermore, defense counsel opened the door to this testimony (see People v Marji, 43 AD3d 961[2007]; People v Johnson, 162 AD2d 471 [1990]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in anyevent, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Hall, JJ., concur.